SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

64:34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

64:34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

64:34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

64:34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

64 taxmann.com 159 (Vizag) wherein, one of the Members (Shri V. Durga Rao, J.M.) was a party to that Coram has decided identical issue in favour of the assessee and against the 6 Vishal Kishorilal Jain ITA no.108–109/Nag./2025 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 Revenue. While deciding the issue, the Co–ordinate Bench has held as under:– “The question

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , NAGPUR vs. M/S. R.B.SETH SHREERAM NARSINGDAS , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Nagpur. Narsingdas, Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacfr0227N Appellant Respondent C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.36/Nag/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Narsingdas, 2(2), Nagpur. Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacr0227N Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Bandhia Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘The 2 C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 Cit(A)’] Dated 28.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

depreciation of Rs.2,20,02,985/-, disallowing on some ad-hoc by excess of Rs.1,16,64,609/- and also the expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility of Rs.2,00,00,000/- with which we are concerned. The Assessing Officer had disallowed expenditure incurred on the development of roads, which is said to be Corporate Social Responsibility by holding that

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

64,000/- out of total donation of Rs. 4,05,68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant’s submission. The appellant has maintained details of name and addressed

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

depreciation allowance, in the following manner, to the extent available" is as under:- Asst. Year Remarks S. Nature of Amount as Amount as No. loss/allowance ( returned (in assessed ( give rupees) in rupees) reference to relevant order) 1. 2002-03 Business loss 28858541 Not available 98748798 2. 2004-05 Business loss 36762850 -Do- 3479468 Total 10,22,28,266/- The assessment

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

M/S. UNIFUES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : M/s.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A] “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves to quashed in the interest of justice. 2) On the facts and circumstances

ANIRUDHA HARIHAR MANDAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), , NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

64,097/- owning to various disallowances made and resultantly as against the returned income the taxable income determined at ₹6,61,87,314/-. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeal the Ld. NFAC provided as much as six opportunities commencing from July